Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSBC money laundering hearings by the US Senate


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

HSBC money laundering hearings by the US Senate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER nor is it a vehicle for propaganda or showcasing. The articles subject does NOT seem be an WP:EVENT which will have any enduring historical significance or have any significant lasting effect. Wikipedia is NOT a repository for every senate hearing in existence. Seems to already be a contentious addition/edit war on its relevant page, HSBC and certainly doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It merits a paragraph on the relevant page but nothing more. Harry the Dog WOOF  20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Harry. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to HSBC money laundering. This is a massively notable( as well as important) topic. But the current article already covers more in the Senate hearings specifically and there's no reason to be unduly restrictive with the name. The historical significance of this event is clear from sources given and dozens more that are out there. groupuscule (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After lengthy discussions and consensus, this topic consists of 4 or 5 sentences on the relevant HSBC page. Hardly warrants its own standalone article--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While consensus at HSBC may have been to limit this topic to 4 or 5 sentences, it's a major event and deserves coverage. RogierBrussee listed some of the key reasons over on that talk page. To quote the first point of their summary: "This so called "incident", was practice over a 10 year period involving knowledge of senior staff. It involved billions of dollars in drugs money, illicit trade with rogue countries, business with terrorist financers and clearing hundreds of millions in phoney traveller checques." This piece in the New York Times makes clear the notability of this event: it's both recordbreaking and has raised major controversy over whether a bank can be 'too big to jail'. More:
 * "HSBC to Pay Record U.S. Penalty", Wall Street Journal
 * "HSBC: Too big to jail?", CNN Money
 * "Key players", described in The Guardian
 * Overall there is lots and lots of coverage.
 * So, yes, this definitely should be a standalone article, especially if there's not enough space to cover it on the main HSBC article. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am still !voting delete, I don't like Hu's throwing around of the term consensus in relation to what [I assume] is the limited discussion on the Talk:HSBC page. AfDs provide a centralized place to have consensus and poisoning the well with "we already met consensus" when I don't see it, doesn't help further the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. I should add that I'm willing to contribute substantial revisions & research for a new page at (possibly) "HSBC money laundering". Should I go ahead and make this happen so people can see what a new page might look like? (Of course others can contribute also.) I'm quite sure there's enough material out there to justify a full article on this topic. groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.